Forums Latest Members
  1. M'Bob Nov 27, 2016

    Posts
    6,342
    Likes
    17,952
    A watchmaker I know was grumbling about the 3XXX series of Rolex movements, how he doesn't care for the micro-gearing, that they don't wear well. When I asked him if he liked an earlier movement that they made, he didn't hesitate, and said the 15XX series, that it was the best Rolex made. I have heard this before.

    So, my question is, was there a time when design elements and technological advancement with the wristwatch intersected, to where it was the "best" it ever was? I use best in quotes, so we don't get too mired in defining what that is.

    For example, the Patex ref. 2526 is touted by many to be the epitome of a automatic wristwatch. The combination of elegant design, enamel dial, and cal. 12-600 movement has never been equaled, including by Patek. But a lot of time has gone by - why haven't we seen something that exceeds it? Was the wristwatches' Golden Age in the 50's? Before or after that? How about now?
     
    MikiJ and corn18 like this.
  2. Vitezi Nov 27, 2016

    Posts
    3,088
    Likes
    13,355
    SpeedTar and Larry S like this.
  3. Kofosu Nov 27, 2016

    Posts
    55
    Likes
    56
    The present age. They are more complicated, durable, and accurate. Sadly also more expensive based on inflation adjusted average earnings.
     
  4. Tony C. Ωf Jury member Nov 27, 2016

    Posts
    7,346
    Likes
    24,028
    Dubious, and on all three counts.

    Complicated = better? Really? So, presumably, by extension, you would prefer to own a contemporary car that requires expensive, complex diagnostic equipment, and technicians with high levels of experience and education to maintain, over an older, simpler, far easier and less expensive to maintain car? Etc.

    Durability? Are you familiar with, to use just one example, Certina DS models from the '60s? I defy you to provide an example of a more durable, high-production, contemporary watch, let alone at anything close to the same price point. Also, are you aware of how durable the Omega 30mm, Longines 30L, IWC cal. 89, etc., movements were? There are a huge number still in use after a half-century or longer, and keeping excellent time.

    Accuracy? Again, please do provide an example of contemporary, regular production models that are, in any meaningful sense, more accurate than the Girard-Perregaux HF chronometers from the '60s.

    I do agree that materials, machine tolerances and lubricants are now largely superior to those used 50+ years ago. But the practical differences are typically quite small.
     
    Edited Nov 27, 2016
  5. al128 unsolicited co-moderation giverer Nov 27, 2016

    Posts
    2,203
    Likes
    2,017
    I tend to agree ... leaving marketing-crap aside ... inhowfar are todays - say - Omega 3 hander movements practically better than a 56x 'meter movement from 68?


    with my personal holy trinity of variables for movements:

    -preciseness
    -durability
    -affordability

    which of the new ones outperform the 50 year old movements? ...


    my personal golden aera is from 1950 to 1970. (before that - there was WWII scarecity of high-quality components, after 1970 the quartz crisis hit hard)
     
    Edited Nov 27, 2016
    lando, Kofosu and Davidt like this.
  6. François Pépin Nov 27, 2016

    Posts
    1,531
    Likes
    1,081
    What is sure is that modern movements have most often greater frequencies. There is statistical reasons why it should increase the accuracy. But then you have to reduce the size of the balance and increase the power of the mainspring.

    I prefer the other choice - the one that is no longer chosen generally speaking! That is to say a large balance with a great moment of inertia and "puissance réglante" (do not know how too translater that) - which could also imply large barrel like in the Zenith 135. It is an old debate - at least it dates back from the 18th c when, for instance Romilly argued for a moderate frequency of 14. 000 bph.

    I like big balances (should maybe try a song with that...) not only because they are - at least to me - much more beautifull, but also because I find their technical choice more interesting. And because this technical choice can be seen, is even a key to look at and understand the movement, such movements are at the same time beautifull and acurate.

    Actually, they are beautifull because they are efficient - which is an old philosophical idea that, maybe, only some watches can fully embody! The same could probably be said of every nicely made watch. But the construction of calibers such as the Z 135 or the Omega 30 has a rare equilibrium, where the elegance tries and succeed to embody the functionality. No more, no less. The idea what is beautifull is efficient and vice versa is a topos of technology - and often it is a legend - but sometimes it appears to be true!

    So yes, the 1930 (hey, do not forget calibers such as the 26,5!)-1960 period is one of the very best one!
     
    Fialetti, Fritz, Vitezi and 4 others like this.
  7. CajunTiger Cajuns and Gators can't read newspapers! Nov 27, 2016

    Posts
    2,678
    Likes
    9,741
    For me the golden era is from the late 50's to the late 60's, my collection consists of mostly tool watches produced during this period and they still work and even look like new today.
     
    MikiJ, lando, watchknut and 3 others like this.
  8. M'Bob Nov 27, 2016

    Posts
    6,342
    Likes
    17,952
    To add another wrinkle, I asked a prominent watch collector why he only buys vintage, nothing new, and he says the older ones look "warmer," and the new pieces are too sterile. I asked him if this could be the nice patina the vintage watches take on over time? Nope, he said - he got the same feeling from untouched older examples as well.

    When I started looking closely at new vs. old, I could see what he means: most of the present watches look too cookie-cutter, almost like the high tolerance machines they use today confer a certain coldness to the overall presentation. Or, could it be that today, there are less hands involved in the completion of a piece, compared to years ago? I don't know, but I think his point is still valid, albeit subtle.
     
    lando, watchknut, Fritz and 7 others like this.
  9. MMMD unaffiliated curmudgeonly absurdist & polyologist Nov 27, 2016

    Posts
    4,642
    Likes
    31,001
    If I had to pick a single year, I'd point the time machine to 1958. The dress watch is still at the peak of its glory, and a man can pick up a 6538, a 2915-1, an FF, or a Geophysic without taking out a second mortgage.
     
  10. oddboy Zero to Grail+2998 In Six Months Nov 27, 2016

    Posts
    9,217
    Likes
    23,877
    "puissance réglante"

    Adjustable power? Regulating power?

    Sounds better in French. :)
     
  11. Dgercp Nov 27, 2016

    Posts
    1,072
    Likes
    1,454
    I think the 1930's were pretty darn golden.
    (Longines 13ZN, Tissot 33.3 (15TL) and Valjoux 23)
     
    IMG_2342.JPG IMG_1647.JPG IMG_2190.JPG
    Syrte likes this.
  12. ulackfocus Nov 27, 2016

    Posts
    25,983
    Likes
    26,968
    Post WWII through the late 60's is what I generally think of as the Golden Age of the wristwatch.

    If I could select one year, it would probably be 1961. The 55x/56x calibers from Omega and the 29x calibers from Longines (two of the best mass production automatic movements EVER made) were dominating the field, and the Piaget 9P manual and 12P micro rotor were both the gold standard for ultra-thins movements. AP, VC, and PP had some beautiful JLC calibers too. Above all, the Zenith 135 and Longines 30L manuals were making a mockery of every other manufacturer's 30mm manual wind calibers.
     
    Pun, lando, Vitezi and 3 others like this.
  13. t_swiss_t Nov 27, 2016

    Posts
    601
    Likes
    2,553
    I think that there's a lot of bias in answering this question because one can only look back knowingly at an era when you are not in it. While we might be able to say that the 90's didn't have the 'golden age' as much as the 60's, I don't think we can say that a 'golden age' of independent making in the last 20 years, including Journe and DuFour amongst others, is outdone by the 50-60's. We just don't have that perspective.

    Also - like the Renaissance, the further you get away from it the more a 'large' period of time, like a decade, can get squashed into a century when recounted by WIS's in another 500 years. So maybe the 40's until now is just one big 'golden age' that we just didn't realize was all one.
     
  14. MPWATCH Watch Lover Nov 27, 2016

    Posts
    993
    Likes
    1,865
    1920's case design makes me want to chase them when I have the money to compete in that area of collecting..... Art Deco is my favorite

    Cheers,

    Thomas
     
    UncleBuck likes this.
  15. mondodec Editor Constellation Collectors Blog Nov 27, 2016

    Posts
    843
    Likes
    871
    I agree with ULF. Generally the late 40's to the late 60's are regarded the period where the technical, mechanical and design elements of watchmaking rose to their peak. The invention of the 360 degree rotor, the Glucydur balance, mobile stud holder, the automatic chronograph, ultra-thin movements, microrotor movements, and numerous other technical improvements to movement design, together with the renaissance in case design of the mid to late 60's are well beyond, say, the rise of the independents in the 90's. Even the fast-beat movement was designed in the 60's along with the world's first introduction of throw-away plastic movements in Lancos and Tissot Astrolons.

    The Quartz era was technically a triumph in watchmaking rather than a Golden era, and even that was conceived in the 50's and 60's. Since then we've seen the invention of the co-axial and the use of new materials such as Silicon, hardly comparable with the frenzy of activity of the 50s and 60s then even today defines quality watchmaking.

    Recently some of the complications that have been produced, like the Jaquet Droz Bird Repeater, are things of wonder that hark back to the automata period of the 1860s - 80s, but if the technical and mechanical elements of watchmaking, together with innovation in case design, are the benchmarks that one uses to determine its halcyon days, I can't see much that would usurp the 50's - 60's.
     
    Vicke, BartH, Kofosu and 4 others like this.
  16. Vitezi Nov 28, 2016

    Posts
    3,088
    Likes
    13,355
    Let's face it, everything sounds better in French.

     
    Syrte, Archer, Kofosu and 1 other person like this.
  17. ulackfocus Nov 28, 2016

    Posts
    25,983
    Likes
    26,968
    oddboy and Vitezi like this.
  18. Kofosu Nov 28, 2016

    Posts
    55
    Likes
    56
    Respectfully, Tony C., and most other members of this forum, know more about watch making and watches than I will ever know. I still regard the present era, -
    and every subsequent measurable era, the finest. The master artists, crafts persons and technicians from the early and mid twentieth century would be dumbfounded by what is currently available. The breadth and depth of what is available is without precedent. Patek for some, G-Shock for others, Citizen Eco -Drive for many. Please don't misunderstand me. I long for an air-cooled, rear-engined sports coup with a manual transmission in my garage. I feel privileged to live in a time when I have the option of having the watch equivalents of a '72 911 alongside a Tesla Model S (I have neither btw)
     
    Pun and Vitezi like this.
  19. WatchVaultNYC Nov 28, 2016

    Posts
    3,719
    Likes
    4,189
    No reason other than I like what I see during the period. But yes 50's to 60's (weighted heavier to the latter). And it looks like I'm not the only one.
     
    Pun likes this.
  20. Screwbacks Nov 28, 2016

    Posts
    1,682
    Likes
    4,857
    Just my opinion, it should be the era in 1920s when the first manual digital watch came out. The jump hour, that may have led to designing the calendar date window.
     
    Edited Nov 28, 2016